On the field results do matter it’s just how people (in this case the committee) is evaluating wins/losses. It’s also a pretty down year with few dominate teams. A lot less controversy if this was last yearBut his point being at least the teams had played each other is valid. If you miss out on a CCG spot because your only loss was to somebody in your division, well, I guess that team already proved they’re better on the field, right? And if a weaker team from the other division ends up winning an upset, well , aren’t wins on the field supposed to mean something?
Is the use of arcane legalistic tiebreakers to determine CCG participants because they hadn’t played each other actually a more definitive process?
Im just not a fan of teams losing to other teams in their conference getting a second-chance consolation prize of a playoff berth because their division is stronger. You had a chance to prove it on the field, you didn’t do it, move on.
But I live in a fantasy world apparently where on-field results don’t matter as much as vibes and reputation and eye test and the like …
***OFFICIAL CFP Rankings Show Watch Thread***
- Thread starter ISUCyclones2015
- Start date
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
It could be a de facto semifinal round for the conference championship. Like this season, the Big XII could have arranged for Iowa State to play BYU and Arizona State to play Colorado, maybe, with the winners all set up for the CCG.
Of course, that’s looking at it in hindsight … since nine teams were still in the running going into the last weekend, any “flex” scheduling would have had to have been more creative than that.
IMO it's a risk reward situation. I'm not saying the Big 12 needs to overreact and do this now but I think it's a valid option if the conference continues to be undervalued. They other thing nobody is talking about is that it's just a matter of time before the Big 12 is black listed form non con games against the B1G and SEC. That is absolutely coming.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
True, but we were talking about divisions and determining CCG participants, not the committee (although I admit I did get off track on the at-large process)
That doesn’t work if your flexing the good teams year to year for this hypothetical game
Might have gotten lost on that one, but yeah I don’t know of too many people who have an issue with the championship game matchups, I could be wrong though
on top of the fact I don't see TV/advertising happy about not having the game some years.
the additional "data point" is space they can sell ads and bring eyes to. I could see after a certain point, TV demanding the extra data point is played every year for more $$$$.
Why do you think that’s coming? I know there is that supposed BIG/SEC partnership but I’ll believe that when I see it.
Big 12 should have every opportunity to get the 3 seed if SMU loses. No ACC team would have a better resume than the big 12 champ.
That’s where the screw job is. Our fans shouldn’t get distracted by Alabama.
This is what you call “delusion”. If Clemson beats SMU there is a 100% chance they’re jumping the Big 12 champ. The committee ensured that when they ranked ASU 15, ISU 16, and Clemson 17, making it easy for Clemson to jump because “they had the better conference championship win.
And I trust the committee so little at this point I would not at all be surprised if UNLV jumps the Big 12 champ if they happen to beat Boise. All they’d have to do is not drop SMU all that much, jump Clemson over the Big 12 champ, and decide UNLV’s top 10 win was so awesome it deserves them moving up 6 or 7 spots.
after thinking about this a lot, and I think they are going to change the bye winners as soon as humanly possible.
They will rank the top 12 (and the top 4 will always be SEC/BIG (because its just a combination of the blueblood SEC/Big12 and Pac12/BIG schools) or ND.
There is going to be too much blow back when you see SMU and Boise State as the 3 and 4 seeds.
what that will mean moving forward? probably the Big 12 winner being placed in a 7 seed or higher situation year in and year out. so most likely permanent road duty. team will have to have no more than 1 loss to host.
the only years we get two is if we have two really good teams meet in the title game and you get like a Notre Dame that doesn't make it.
They will rank the top 12 (and the top 4 will always be SEC/BIG (because its just a combination of the blueblood SEC/Big12 and Pac12/BIG schools) or ND.
There is going to be too much blow back when you see SMU and Boise State as the 3 and 4 seeds.
what that will mean moving forward? probably the Big 12 winner being placed in a 7 seed or higher situation year in and year out. so most likely permanent road duty. team will have to have no more than 1 loss to host.
the only years we get two is if we have two really good teams meet in the title game and you get like a Notre Dame that doesn't make it.
I follow college football nationally much less than I used to because it has been ruined by the selection committee and media coverage (ESPN and others). When I was a kid, the Big Eight champion always went to the Orange Bowl, championships were decided by polls, and sometimes we had split national champions. There were many fewer televised games, so we paid more attention to the games that were available. We would listen to Pete and Eric on the radio if the game wasn't on TV. And Iowa State almost always sucked, but even so it was so it was so much better than the system we have now. I remember watching the Doug Flutie hail mary game and when Tom Osborne went for two. Most of the big bowl games were on either New Years Eve or New Years Day. This year I won't watch a single playoff game unless Iowa State is playing - not because I'm boycotting, but because I'm not that interested.
I don’t think the byes will get adjusted, hosting the playoff games is more appealing than having a bye for most teams. With the bye you play one less game (which some people will claim builds rust) but the games will be harder. Pretty sure OSU/PSU will be very happy hosting a playoff game up north in winter conditions and padding that resume
The methods of determining the "two best teams" is majorly flawed when there is this little overlap in their schedules. Don't like divisions? Then figure out how to balance them better. But currently they're the best way of at least ensuring the teams under consideration have actually faced each other. Head to head result seems to be the most important data point for almost everybody out there.
No they aren’t. What conference championship game is currently not hosting the two best teams? Big ten is fine, SEC is fine, Big12 is fine, ACC is fine, where is this even coming from? I haven’t heard this argument anywhere else
Arguably any conference that relied on tiebreakers where the teams involved didn't face each other. Specifically the Big 12 and the Big Ten.
We have no idea if ASU and ISU were the two best teams in the conference. Four teams finished 7-2. Sagarin has Colorado as the highest-rated team in the league right now.
Indiana and Penn State didn't play each other. I'm not convinced that Indiana isn't better than Penn State. Especially if they had played late in the season and Indiana has their single-digit ranking... James Franklin would lose that game.
If you think Indiana is better than Penn state you haven’t been paying attention. They just don’t have the talent to hand with actual good teams. It’s why they got boat races by OSU and barely beat a very rough Michigan team.
Now the James Franklin effect might make that game closer than it should be but Indiana just isn’t close to competing at that level. PSU isn’t even that good but Indiana doesn’t have the talent
Big 12 starts their own 4 team playoff
ACC starts their own 4 team playoff
Winners play each other in January
Bam problem solved
Phase out all scheduling with B10 and SEC
Gets some guts Brett
ACC starts their own 4 team playoff
Winners play each other in January
Bam problem solved
Phase out all scheduling with B10 and SEC
Gets some guts Brett
That's great. Now do Penn State. I didn't imagine 7-5 Minnesota losing that game far more than Penn State winning it. Nor was the OT game at 6-6 USC imaginary either. Illinois is their best win I think?
